What amazes me is how there were no leaks regarding the increased phone record 'requests' made to Verizon by any Verizon employee. Is it really just business as usual at the phone company when the government is mining so much data on so many people? Or does the government just hook into Verizon's database and just take what it wants without assistance from a Verizon employee?

The South China Morning Post, a local newspaper, reported on Friday that Edward J. Snowden, the contractor, had shared detailed data showing the dates and Internet Protocol addresses of specific computers in mainland China and Hong Kong that the National Security Agency penetrated over the last four years. The data also showed whether the agency was still breaking into these computers, the success rates for hacking and other operational information.

"I hope that we don't decide that our national security interests are going to be determined by a high-school dropout who had a whole series of both academic troubles and employment troubles," Rogers said.

Seriously? Lets turn the attention away from the program itself and tuen the nations attention to the messenger.

Scare tactics for future leakers. So the fat cats in power.. could hold onto power.

BigMcK wrote:What amazes me is how there were no leaks regarding the increased phone record 'requests' made to Verizon by any Verizon employee. Is it really just business as usual at the phone company when the government is mining so much data on so many people? Or does the government just hook into Verizon's database and just take what it wants without assistance from a Verizon employee?

As we learned, it's not just Verizon.

One question I have is if these companies willingly agree with this, as in, are on the same page with the gov. or if they are (forcibly) coerced into complying.

In a rare public ruling by the nation’s most secretive judicial body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled Wednesday that it did not object to the release of a classified 86-page opinion concluding that some of the U.S. government’s surveillance activities were unconstitutional.

The ruling, signed by the court’s chief judge, Reggie Walton, rejected the Justice Department’s arguments that the secret national security court’s rules prevented disclosure of the opinion. Instead, the court found that because the document was in the possession of the Justice Department, it was subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration could give the rebels a range of weapons, including small arms, assault rifles, shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and other anti-tank missiles. The opposition forces could operate most of that equipment without significant training.

Earlier Friday, Syria said that the United States was lying about the regime's use of chemical weapons, while Russia called the claims unconvincing — a dramatic turn in the two-year conflict.

"The United States, in resorting to a shameful use of pretexts in order to allow President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian opposition, shows that it has flagrant double standards in the way it deals with terrorism," Syria's foreign ministry said.

Syria has maintained that "terrorists" are using the chemical weapons.

Russia, which has opposed sanctions and vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions to put pressure on Assad, reacted with skepticism to the White House's announcement.

President Vladimir Putin's senior foreign policy adviser said Friday that the information the U.S. has "does not look convincing."

The problem with the claim is that the evidence suggests sarin gas was used. The reason this is a problem is sarin was not previously believed to be something in the Syrian inventory prior to this civil war. It is, however, something that the rebels are believed to have obtained. So the worry is that a rebel faction has deployed the nerve agent in limited quantities in civilian populations to make it look like Asad's forces did it in the hopes of provoking the West into direct action against the regime. So there's that.

Shocking statistics that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year....

The House bill would require a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a member of the armed services convicted of rape or sexual assault in a military court.

Officers, commissioned warrant officers, cadets and midshipmen convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy or attempts to commit those offenses also would be dismissed. Enlisted personnel and noncommissioned warrant officers convicted of similar crimes would be dishonorably discharged.

The bill also would strip military commanders of the power to overturn convictions in rape and sexual assault cases.

BigMcK wrote:Any mention if the gas was courtesy of the former Iraq regime?

The only reference to Iraq possessing sarin after the 1991 Gulf War was the now largely discredited 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) upon which mush of the justification for the 2003 invasion was dependent. It claimed Iraq had as much as 500 metric tons of the stuff, no trace of which was ever found in ten years of occupation.

BigMcK wrote:Any mention if the gas was courtesy of the former Iraq regime?

The only reference to Iraq possessing sarin after the 1991 Gulf War was the now largely discredited 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) upon which mush of the justification for the 2003 invasion was dependent. It claimed Iraq had as much as 500 metric tons of the stuff, no trace of which was ever found in ten years of occupation.

BigMcK wrote:Any mention if the gas was courtesy of the former Iraq regime?

The only reference to Iraq possessing sarin after the 1991 Gulf War was the now largely discredited 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) upon which mush of the justification for the 2003 invasion was dependent. It claimed Iraq had as much as 500 metric tons of the stuff, no trace of which was ever found in ten years of occupation.